I've seen several implied references to it, but nothing substantive. The idea pertains to "alliances". It's a different alliance format other than the BCS/power conference concept. The thought is the 5 or so less powerful FBS conferences each need a "big daddy" for protection, certain accesses, scheduling securities, and revenue implications.

The structure would go something like this (columns remain intact, but the matches may differ).

The idea could relate to stability for the lesser conferences. It facilitates certain assured OOC scheduling. It would impact bowl access and revenue sharing. For certain conferences such as the PAC12, it may promote certain preferred games/rivalries without direct conference membership. It could help control who moves up into FBS status. The stronger the power conference, perhaps somewhat less the need for the stronger dependent conference. Matches are based largely on geography/regionalism. Such is an "associative" relationship, NOT any form of co-membership. The power conferences with less membership or contain more less-grand schools, could be matched loosely with the stronger dependents. Otherwise, the concept would largely compromise its purpose. For the lessers, it could be a "stronger partner" for bargaining and revenue sharing.

The traditional "have-nots" need protection in this contractual TV age. The lesser are still financially less, and held to their role, but it does not mean individual schools could not move up or elsewhere as needs, capabilities, and desires shift.

So, it's homage for protection---like an urban grocery store may pay to organized crime elements to keep other gangs away and stay viable.

I think there is something to this. It manifests itself in scheduling of about 2 OOC games / year for each of the Big 5 teams.

I think you can remove the WAC from your list, since they will no longer be sponsoring FB.Idaho (moving to Big Sky) will likely revert to FCS football.NMSU can be regarded as a western independent (a la BYU) although they have a chance of snagging a slot in CUSA or Sun-Belt whe this all shakes out.

I think the other 3 independents (Army, Notre Dame, and Navy (not yet known what they plan to do after 2014)) are associated with ACC/nBE.

I've seen several implied references to it, but nothing substantive. The idea pertains to "alliances". It's a different alliance format other than the BCS/power conference concept. The thought is the 5 or so less powerful FBS conferences each need a "big daddy" for protection, certain accesses, scheduling securities, and revenue implications.

The structure would go something like this (columns remain intact, but the matches may differ).

The idea could relate to stability for the lesser conferences. It facilitates certain assured OOC scheduling. It would impact bowl access and revenue sharing. For certain conferences such as the PAC12, it may promote certain preferred games/rivalries without direct conference membership. It could help control who moves up into FBS status. The stronger the power conference, perhaps somewhat less the need for the stronger dependent conference. Matches are based largely on geography/regionalism. Such is an "associative" relationship, NOT any form of co-membership. The power conferences with less membership or contain more less-grand schools, could be matched loosely with the stronger dependents. Otherwise, the concept would largely compromise its purpose. For the lessers, it could be a "stronger partner" for bargaining and revenue sharing.

The traditional "have-nots" need protection in this contractual TV age. The lesser are still financially less, and held to their role, but it does not mean individual schools could not move up or elsewhere as needs, capabilities, and desires shift.

So, it's homage for protection---like an urban grocery store may pay to organized crime elements to keep other gangs away and stay viable.

Had very similar ideas myself. I think the new SEC Network should give the SunBelt a TV deal for thier football. All SunBelt schools are in SEC states so their should be some interest, big brother following little brother, helps with live programming. Sun Belt conference games could be played on Thursdays and Fridays when there is plenty of SEC games available on Saturday.

He said 11 or 12 team league for 2013. Does this mean that things with Houston and SMU are not working out or is he just not tipping his hand as to what is to come?

As for sec03's thoughts about the little leagues partnering with the Big Leagues I think its a great idea. There's no reason why I shouldn't be able to watch a MAC game of the week on Friday night on the Big 10 Network. If the Big leagues picked up on this idea and managed it successfully we could see a new paradigm in which its the leagues and not the television networks that hold the cards when it comes to controlling the rights and market value of college football. It would dramatically shrink the pool of live sporting events available to the networks. Suddenly we find ourselves with a Big Ten Network and a Big Ten Network 2 and a Pac 12 Network and a Pac 12 Network 2, etc. Suddenly the conferences themselves have complete control of their Tier 2 and Tier 3 rights and the cost that ESPN/ABC, FOX, CBS, and NBC pay for Tier 1 rights go through the rough because their is no longer any Tier 2 games available to air as filler.

I disagree. I think UMass would be a terrible add for a number of reasons. In their first year in the big league they struggled on the field and failed to attract more fans as a FBS program than they did as an FCS program. The other thing about UMass is they are most certainly being considered as a travel partner for UConn. UConn and UMass are miles apart in terms of where their programs are at so I doubt this will become a competitive rivalry. Also factor in that UConn has ZERO loyalty to this new Big East and will be out the door as soon as an ACC invite materializes leaving the Big East with an under-performing geographic outlier in UMass. For the time being UConn should be content being travel partners with Temple.

I think Army has to be the first priority for the BE---its a longshot but I think that option has to be exhausted before they look elsewhere.

I am assuming that San Diego St will be gone by the end of the week so considering Fresno St or any other Far West football only option is pointless.

Tulsa is the next program to pursue. They are the most competitive of the options on the table. After that I think the Big East should pass on Rice and pursue UTSA. Yes, they are a start up but they would help cement that western division and unlike Rice, who lives in the past, UTSA has a promising future. Southern Miss could be an option as well.

UMass is just getting started on FBS football. About 9 years ago UConn was in that same position.They have POTENTIAL right now, and that is what this is based on.

I sure HOPE SDSU returns to the MWC and further helps clean up what I refer to as the "Marinatto Mess".I think UMass and Tulsa plug in nicely.

East -UMassUConnTempleECUUCFUSF

West -CincyMemphisTulaneHoustonSMUTulsa

12 all-sports members(not sure what will happen with Navy, if they come in for FB only, it would sure be nice if Army did too, even though Army has repeatedly sounded reluctant based on their CUSA experience).

If UConn does get the ACC invite and departs, UMass and Temple become "travel partners".

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum